uggabugga

HOME RSS | .

Monday, June 26, 2006

Strange L. A. Times editorial:

These are the opening words in today's LATimes editorial, The Dems' Iraq gap (they didn't capitalize the "g" in gap): (emp add)

T'S UNDERSTANDABLE THAT DEMOCRATS in the U.S. Senate would use the war in Iraq to send a political message to the party faithful, as some did last week in voting for doomed resolutions to fast-track the withdrawal (or "redeployment") of U.S. forces from that country. Trouble is, the message sent to the rest of the country may be that Democrats who are more liberal can't be trusted when it comes to national security.

But they don't say why that is so. The closest reason, is perhaps this:

Playing politics is, unfortunately, an apt description of last week's Senate debate. It was mostly election-year posturing — on both sides.

Maybe the Times is saying that "Democrats who are more liberal" are "playing politics" which means they "can't be trusted", but then, so are the Republicans.

Another possibility is that by "calling for troop withdrawals" means they can't be trusted. But that argument is not made explicit. All we have is that declarative statement, "Democrats who are more liberal can't be trusted" - hanging there, without a solid argument to support it.

posted by Quiddity at 6/26/2006 03:43:00 PM

3 comments

The choice is "cut & run" or "sit & rot". What? There is no middle gound? NO

Let me remind you of the situation before the war. Yes, it does seem like ages ago. The U.S. was funding the Iraqi National Congress (i.e. townhouses in London, all expenses paid.) The I.N.C. was suppose to mount an insurgency against Saddam but they never did. Tough choice on their part: live in luxury in London or in conditions of degradation in Bagdad. Bush has given them another tough choice: let American GIs die protecting your sorry asses or let Iraqis die. They are contemplating their choise and the let us know when their ready to "stand-up" so we can "stand-down". Anyone want to take bets on a timeframe?

This whole Iraq fiasco was a bad mistake the sooner we can get it behind us the better.

By Anonymous, at 6/27/2006 8:48 AM

The magic words are "may be." Maybe is always a true statement. Maybe 6 = 9. May be.

By brainhell, at 6/27/2006 2:40 PM

Senate Hearing on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence Senate Hearing on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence

Paul Pillar, Former CIA Iraq Intelligence Coordinator, testified that the Bush Administration ignored the intelligence community's assessments. Pillar told the Senate Committee about "the non-use of intelligence and intelligence assessments in making the decision to go to war in Iraq."

"the intelligence community accessed, for example, that Iraq probably was several years away from development of a nuclear weapon. A judgment at variance with the publicly expressed view of the vice president that Saddam Hussein was fairly close to getting such a weapon."

"The estimate accessed that Saddam was unlikely to use any weapons of mass destruction he did have against the United States or to give them to terrorists except perhaps in the extreme case in which we tried to overthrow his regime as with an invasion."

"On the issue of the Saddam regime's relations with terrorist groups, the intelligence community, in the assessments it produced on that subject, never judged that there was anything close to an alliance with al-Qeada."

"It also accessed that war and occupation would boost political Islam, increase sympathy for terrorists' objectives and make Iraq a magnet for extremists from elsewhere in the Middle East. Clearly, little, if any of this, influenced the decision making on going to war."
Senate Hearing on Iraq Pre-War Intelligence

By Tom, at 6/27/2006 2:59 PM